The Animal Doctor

DEAR READERS: This is Part 1 of a planned three-part series on this issue.

The continuing assaults by the cattle industry on wildlands, biodiversity, Indigenous peoples and wildlife, as well as the industry’s contributions to climate change and the risks it poses to consumers and public health, call for full accountability and change.

U.S. cattle ranchers have waged war on wolves and other predators for centuries, which ultimately disrupts the valuable ecological services these predators play in keeping deer and elk herds -- as well as forests -- healthy. All of this ultimately affects public health. (See drfoxonehealth.com/post/wolves-and-human-well-being-ecological-public-health-concerns.)

Worse, ranchers are often assisted in their wolf-killing efforts by government agencies. A disturbing article by Christopher Ingraham, published in August in the Minnesota Reformer, underscores the perpetuation of this insanity. The story is entitled, “USDA kills hundreds of Minnesota wolves to protect ranchers’ profits.”

Ingraham writes: “In 2022, there were 174 documented wolf deaths in Minnesota, according to the latest state Department of Natural Resources data. Of those, 142 were killed by a relatively obscure arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture called the Wildlife Services division. ...

“USDA officers kill more wolves in Minnesota than in all other states combined, according to the program’s annual reports. That work is effectively a government handout to ranchers, who receive publicly funded protection for their privately held livestock. The ranchers also receive cash compensation from state taxpayers for their lost cattle, which in 2022 totaled $100,000 for 78 wolf predation claims, or an average of about $1,300 per claim.

“While individual ranchers can experience significant losses if wolves repeatedly target their cows, the overall impact on the state’s cattle population is negligible. There are about 2.2 million cows in the state, according to USDA data. The five or six dozen documented and verified wolf kills in a given year amount to a few thousandths of 1% of the total population.

“But the USDA’s actions in response inflict a steep toll upon Minnesota’s wolves. The 142 kills amount to fully 5% of the state’s estimated wolf population.”

As confirmed by objective research on the subject, such lethal “wolf control” practices do more harm than good -- and can actually increase livestock losses! A 2014 study found that livestock mortality increased as wolves were killed, possibly because the killings spurred surviving wolves to mate more often.

From the study’s abstract: “The odds of livestock depredations increased 4% for sheep and 5% to 6% for cattle with increased wolf control -- up until wolf mortality exceeded the mean intrinsic growth rate of wolves at 25%. ... Lethal control of individual depredating wolves may sometimes be necessary to stop depredations in the near term, but we recommend that nonlethal alternatives also be considered.” (Study: R.B. Wielgus and K.A. Peebles: “Effects of Wolf Mortality on Livestock Depredations,” PLOS One, December 2014)

Many Americans still connect cattle ranching with the enchanting mythology of the Old West frontier, with its cowboys and its “manifest destiny.” But the much-romanticized cowboys, in reality, committed genocide and ecocide, exterminating Indigenous peoples and animals alike. They almost annihilated the bison to fatten the coffers of the cattle barons.

Similarly, the now-critical depletion of aquifers, the degradation of public “range” lands by cattle, the destruction of prairie grasslands and the draining of wetlands to raise feed for the livestock industry collectively amount to ecocide. This is compounded by pollution to the air, groundwater and drinking water from livestock fecal waste. The highly publicized climate-change contributions from livestock in the form of methane are but the tip of the iceberg -- or the animal waste-pile -- created by the global livestock industry and its hide-tanning subsidiaries.

According to one analysis, “About 85% of public lands in the western USA are grazed by domestic livestock, and they influence climate change in three profound ways: 1. They are significant sources of greenhouse gases through enteric fermentation and manure deposition; 2. They defoliate native plants, trample vegetation and soils, and accelerate the spread of exotic species, resulting in a shift in landscape function from carbon sinks to sources of greenhouse gases; and 3. They exacerbate the effects of climate change on ecosystems by creating warmer and drier conditions.” (Study: J.B. Kauffman et al, “Livestock Use on Public Lands in the Western USA Exacerbates Climate Change: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation,” Environmental Management, April 2022)

When purchasing beef at the local store, consider the full ethical and environmental cost -- to which we should add the expenses of monitoring, containing, preventing and treating the many diseases cattle can suffer. Some of these diseases can infect us and/or wildlife. (Study: R.S. Miller et al, “Diseases at the livestock-wildlife interface: status, challenges, and opportunities in the United States,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, June 2013)

As the human population increases, along with livestock numbers and demand for meat, there will be predictable increases in diseases harbored by cattle and other farmed animals -- and even more zoonotic diseases challenging the human populace.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: Many wild and domesticated animal species have served us in myriad ways for millennia, in times of both peace and war.

They have provided food, clothing, fuel, labor and protection; they help us hunt, herd, track, guide, transport, rescue and communicate. They give us companionship, entertainment, competition and education; more recently, they even act as co-therapists. We have relied on animals to test military weapons and to advance human health through biomedical testing and research. We have genetically engineered them to serve as organ donors.

The creatures providing all these services include bees (and other insects), frogs, pigeons, hawks, cormorants, dolphins, elephants, rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses and camels.

We have yet to fully acknowledge the empathy, trust, loyalty and devotion animals have given us, without question, since our earliest relationships with them. As the human population increased throughout history, so did the rate of animal use, for various culturally accepted -- and often financially driven -- purposes. It was not until the early 19th century that various forms of animal exploitation and mistreatment began to be questioned and animal protection and welfare organizations were established.

Here is an excellent summation written by professor Ian J.H. Duncan, emeritus chair in Animal Welfare at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada:

“Up until the 17th century, philosophers regarded animals as being quite distinct from human beings; human beings had rationality whereas animals had none. This meant that animals had only instrumental value and could be used in any way that human beings desired. During the Enlightenment, philosophers started to realize that the distinction was not clear-cut; animals had some rationality. (Social reformer Jeremy) Bentham pointed out that rationality was not the important factor; animals could suffer and that was what mattered; animals had intrinsic value. Also, during the 19th century, as part of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, it was seen that states of suffering and states of pleasure could also be adaptive.

"Although the foundation was now in place, the emergence of modern animal welfare science was delayed through the first 70 years of the 20th century by Behaviorism, which eschewed any consideration of subjective experiences. It took a controversial book by a layperson, Ruth Harrison, to stir both the scientific and philosophical community into developing theories of animal welfare, and a book by an ethologist, Donald Griffin, to make it acceptable to study the feelings of animals." (For the full study, see ”Animal Welfare: A Brief History,” published in Animal Welfare: From Science to Law, 2019.)

Behaviorism amounts to the objectification of animals as instinct-driven automatons, and it counters any anthropomorphizing of animal consciousness. I agree with Duncan that this spell was broken by the two books he references: 1964's "Animal Machines" by Ruth Harrison, which addressed the cruelties of animal factory farms, and 1976's "The Question of Animal Awareness" by Donald Griffin, which helped people see animal sentience as a legitimate, science-based issue. I was fortunate to know and work closely with both of these authors.

After the publication of these groundbreaking books, several philosophers and attorneys argued for animals having rights, but made little progress. They lacked the backing of veterinarians, ethologists and other biological scientists who could provide evidence of species’ interests and needs (behavioral, socioemotional and environmental), as well as their physical and nutritional requirements. Such support and evidence became the core bioethical principles of animal husbandry and humane stewardship that help ensure animals’ health and well-being under the banners of duty of care -- elements of which are now incorporated in animal welfare laws in various countries.

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness -- a public statement about animal sentience signed by neuroscientists in 2012 in Cambridge, U.K. -- was a landmark contribution from the scientific community. And significant advances in understanding animal consciousness and sentience have been made since then.

From a One Health perspective, environmental health/protection, as advocated by ecologists and conservationists, is linked with animal rights. Animals' health and well-being mirror our own. All who oppose environmental and animal protections may someday be found guilty of crimes against humanity by eroding the bioethical basis of One Health.

THANK THE EARTHWORMS!

From an article on Science.org:

"According to the first worldwide estimate of the invertebrates’ contribution to crop yields, earthworms add more than 140 million tons of food each year. For wheat harvests alone, that’s roughly equivalent to one slice in every loaf of bread."

Earthworms churn and aerate the soil, helping the land hold on to water and release nutrients. They also trigger plants to grow and defend themselves against pathogens. Soil ecologist Steven Fonte of Colorado State University led the first-of-its-kind estimate of wormy benefits. He said that farmers and policymakers should consider ways to make agriculture more worm-friendly -- such as by plowing less often.

“(Worms) don’t respond well to tractors chopping them in half,” he said. “Despite popular belief, you don’t get two earthworms.” (Full story: Science.org, Sept. 26)

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: When big fish eat little fish contaminated with pollutants, these chemicals accumulate in their bodies. This is called the food chain effect, and it occurs in farmed animals that aren't fed organically certified foods.

Even organic foods can be contaminated by chemical pollutants in the rain, air and dust, but at least the contamination will be minimized due to the soil remediation required before organic certification. The prohibitions on using anabolic steroid hormones and other pharmaceuticals to boost livestock productivity are another benefit.

This is why, from a holistic health and environmental perspective, we should all eat lower on the food chain, primarily consuming a plant-based diet. Consuming plants eliminates the risk of zoonotic (animal-to-human) diseases, provided the crops we eat are not contaminated with harmful bacteria such as E. coli from animal manure.

Human babies who are breastfed will benefit from their mothers eating lower on the food chain. A 1981 study concluded: "Nursing infants of vegetarian women whose diets are low on the food chain are exposed to less chemical pollution" (from "Pollutants in breast milk of vegetarians," J. Hergenrather et al, New England Journal of Medicine, March 1981).

The issue was studied further in a 2020 synthesis, whose abstract states, "On the basis of the current evidence, vegetarian and vegan mothers are capable of producing nutritionally valuable milk for their infants," adding that some mothers may require "appropriate supplementation" to fill any gaps (from "Vegan or vegetarian diet and breast milk composition: A systematic review," K. Karcz and B. Krolak-Olejnik, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2020).

Being vegan improves our health, and has also been shown to improve the health of dogs and cats when given properly formulated diets free of animal products. (For details, see the next item in this column!)

Veganism reduces the biodiversity loss and climate change associated with the animal farming and seafood industries and prevents the suffering of billions of animals destined for human consumption. With humans now numbering over 8 billion, we cannot live like carnivores -- or even omnivores -- without exacerbating the harms we have caused to planetary life and to ourselves.

In forthcoming columns, I will continue to address the global problems associated with the consumption of beef.

VEGAN PET FOODS: STRONG MARKETS, HEALTH BENEFITS

From a Sept. 11 post on PetFoodProcessing.net: "According to data from Future Market Insights (FMI), the vegan dog food market is currently worth $13.58 billion and has an estimated continued annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7% for the next 10 years ... In contrast, the traditional, animal protein-based dog food sector has an estimated CAGR of 4.3% through 2033, according to FMI."

For the health benefits of vegan diets for dogs, see my post: drfoxonehealth.com/post/health-benefits-of-vegan-dog-food.

For the benefits for cats, see the study "Vegan versus meat-based cat food: Guardian-reported health outcomes in 1,369 cats, after controlling for feline demographic factors" (A. Knight et al, PLOS ONE, Sept. 13, 2023).

DEAR DR. FOX: This article examines and dispels the notion of “littermate syndrome” -- the myth that littermate pups should not be raised together because they get too attached and can have behavioral problems later in life. Link: thefarmersdog.com/digest/littermate-syndrome-in-dogs.

I haven’t observed this “syndrome” in dogs, nor in young wild coyotes or foxes, and have never heard about it in wolves. It’s a myth that needs to be put to rest once and for all. What is your opinion? -- M.B., Boulder, Colorado

DEAR M.B.: I agree with you. Adopting two pups -- or kittens -- from the same litter is a best-practice initiative that all animal shelters, adoption centers and rescue organizations should embrace. Dogs and cats are social animals, and far too many are left alone all day with no contact with their own kind -- and too little with their owners, who are away from home for hours on end.

I was very disheartened by a woman who was fostering a litter of kittens (my wife and I had rescued the pregnant mother cat) -- she insisted on adopting out the 12 kittens separately so they would "make better pets and bond with their owners." One kitten per owner/family. It took me a while to convince her otherwise!

I wonder about all the lonely, highly intelligent, social parrots in captivity, going nuts living alone and pulling out their feathers. But some have learned how to communicate with other parrots when "introduced" via videochat, and enjoy doing so for hours!

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)